Reader clarifies letter reference to Constitution
While taking a former commissioner to task Mr. Ferrell didn’t do his own research. The Constitution does not state “Provide for the Common Welfare.” That phrase is not in the Constitution.
The exact phrase is “promote the general welfare” in the preamble (Note that the word provide is used in the context of ‘provide for the common defense’).
It does not mean that everyone gets welfare as defined today.
Within the context of the Constitution, the aspects of the ‘general welfare’ are enumerated in Article I, section 8 – these items are the embodiment of promoting the general welfare.
You also asked what Democrat wants to ban all guns. Here’s three: Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and Senator Dianne Feinstein.
There are many more but these suffice as an example.
Rebuttal to letter on guns
In a letter written by Mr. Jim Ferrell concerning guns, there are many factual errors that need to be addressed.
The letter starts off by stating: name one Democrat that is for abolishing our right to own guns.
If anyone watched the presidential debates, statements made by Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders made it quite clear that they want harsher gun laws on the books, including the non-due process of Red Flag laws, a ban on all semi-automatic guns, which includes all handguns, which are by their nature semi-automatic. For the record, semi-automatic means the trigger must be pulled each time it is fired. The chamber will only fire one at a time.
Second, the point about Chicago is at best ludicrous. There are many mass shootings. This August in Chicago there were seven people dead and over 46 wounded over one weekend. On that weekend eight people were shot in a section of Chicago called Lawndale alone. This sounds a lot more than one-on-one.
To the point about on why, if we license drivers, then we should license guns. There is a simple reason for this: driving is a privilege and guns are a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Should we license free speech next or search and seizure? Americans do not have to have a license to practice what is in the Bill of Rights.
As far as stabbings vs. gun violence. Has anyone checked the crime stats of England? In a country where it is virtually impossible to own a gun, there were more murders in London than in New York. How? Stabbings and acid attacks.
As for the slippery slope of giving up rights little by little: In 1916 before prohibition, it is stated by Congress that there would never be a national referendum banning alcohol. Four years later and look what happened. How did that turn out? When innocent Americans couldn’t buy alcohol they turned to criminals. What makes you think the bad guys won’t do that if we ban guns?
I believe when people who think only with their emotions and not facts, try to pass laws, the result is often wrong-headed and harmful. Do you want a country where the bill of rights is trampled on when the wind blows?
And what was the point?
A PV Times letter published Aug. 21, by C.J. Stevens, pointed to my flaws regarding the Mueller investigation.
Has he or anyone else noticed lately you can hardly read or hear a word on the investigation or the Mueller testimony? Maybe the following could provide some answers.
Dean Baquet, executive editor of the New York Times, known as the “paper of record,” recently held a staff meeting. One staff member (with some journalistic integrity) recorded the meeting and released the audio. In the most revealing parts Mr. Baquet said, “We built our newsroom to cover one story, (referring to the Russia – Trump collusion story) and we did it well. Now we have to regroup and shift resources and emphasizes to take on a different story. Race in the next year – and I think, to be frank, what I would hope, you come away from this discussion with – race in the next year is going to be a huge part of the American story.”
I don’t know how anyone could possibly call it journalism, let alone honesty. It is the very definition of “the tail wagging the dog.”
C.J. Stevens made some broad insinuations, my views coming from Fox News, which admittedly I view, along with CNN, MSNBC and others.
There is an old adage, “buyer beware.” I believe, especially today, you can add “consumer of news beware.”
Many years ago on a program which may have been “60 Minutes” an interviewer was talking to journalism students in college. One of the main questions was, “Why do you want to be a journalist?” The almost universal answer was “because I want to change the world.” There were no follow-up questions but I remember having one, a very important one, which was, “how?” By reporting the things you find factually and honestly or putting your spin and biases in your reporting? Judging by the New York Times executive editor’s staff meeting, the latter is predominant.
In C.J. Stevens’ scenario of “prosecution for profit” all cases had absolutely nothing to do with Russian collusion and if in the process crimes and past transgressions were applied equally, no doubt the investigative team would have easily doubled, potentially much more.
If you believe the president has committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” impeachment should have already begun.
After all it took less than two years to get Nixon to resign for a “cover-up” crime, far less than the accusations against Trump.